Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider
registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.

That was 10 years ago. I don't see any reference to UV being generated these days and, indeed, there have been plenty of YouTube videos showing people observing reactions, seemingly without any protection from the UV.

Is this still a current claim?

I believe so. Apparently the Hydrino reaction produces a special form of UV radiation that it can be detected even by devices that are deemed incapable doing so by their manufacturer, and is also safe enough that the BLP workforce does not need to use UV protective glasses.

It's too bad that the person with the sunburn didn't post a selfie photo so that markie could use it to come up with an estimate of the energy produced.

It'd be low calorie; you'd have a choice between half a bowl, a third of a bowl, a quarter of a bowl...

Dave

__________________Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

That was 10 years ago. I don't see any reference to UV being generated these days and, indeed, there have been plenty of YouTube videos showing people observing reactions, seemingly without any protection from the UV.

Is this still a current claim?

Certainly it is. It is still a claim that the primary reaction emits in the UV, mostly in the eUV and soft X-ray.

The reaction environment now is different than it was in 2008 however. In 2008 the gas - plasma was thin enough to be optically thin and relatively transparent to UV. Back then the company was appropriately called BlackLight Power. The light emitted was primarily invisible. UV is easily attenuated by air, so any UV going through the quartz containment would be mostly stopped and any sunburn would be minor. Besides, at that time, the power density of the reaction was low.

Starting with the SunCell type of reaction c2014, the reaction environment has changed. The plasma is relatively thick to better conduct the high current. The eUV of the primary reaction thus gets absorbed and reemitted by the plasma as lower energy, brilliant light. Hence the name change to BrilliantLight Power.

Certainly it is. It is still a claim that the primary reaction emits in the UV, mostly in the eUV and soft X-ray.

The reaction environment now is different than it was in 2008 however. In 2008 the gas - plasma was thin enough to be optically thin and relatively transparent to UV. Back then the company was appropriately called BlackLight Power. The light emitted was primarily invisible. UV is easily attenuated by air, so any UV going through the quartz containment would be mostly stopped and any sunburn would be minor. Besides, at that time, the power density of the reaction was low.

Starting with the SunCell type of reaction c2014, the reaction environment has changed. The plasma is relatively thick to better conduct the high current. The eUV of the primary reaction thus gets absorbed and reemitted by the plasma as lower energy, brilliant light. Hence the name change to BrilliantLight Power.

markie how long do you think it will be before they change the name again to:

That suggests a bit of stupidity from Professor Randy Booker because Mills math skills are not the real issue. We have no evidence that Mills cannot do basic math. It is the ignorance, delusions and lies in his GUTCP book that is the real issue.

Professor Randy Booker should know not to waste his time with Mills' crank theory. Booker's field of expertise is the rotational spectra of molecules. He knows about spectra in general and the fact that no one has even observed any spectra from Mills' hydrino delusion.

Professor Randy Booker is one of the validators for BLP and did a 2016 report on a calorimeter experiment. That is dubious because he is not a calorimeter expert.

Just as some over in the BLP sub-Reddit suspect markie of being a deep skeptic, so I'm beginning to think Booker may be a deep skeptic (of Mills' BBoBB) too.

For example, from what I've reviewed so far:

Booker identifies quite a few disagreements (in values, not equations) yet almost never investigates them

There's no mention of uncertainties ("error bars"), anywhere; for someone who specialized in rotational spectra, this sticks out like a sore thumb

Booker apparently did not check any of Mills' quoted "experimental values", not that they match with the actual ones, nor whether sources are quoted (this is a bit unclear)

Once again I'd like to thank SB for the suggestion about a civil discussion. My experience, so far, is that it's pretty one-sided: I post in the BLP sub-Reddit, but no one there posts here (optiongeek aside; she obviously knows I am an ISF member who has actively participated in this thread and its predecessors).

I've ventured into three of the BLP sub-Reddit discussions/threads, so far with the same results ... only WupWup9r and optiongeek seriously engage with me (not counting the Mills/BLP skeptics who do). I do not know if markie posts there (not by that name, for sure, but another handle?), but based on what he's posted here he seems to know far more (or pretends to anyway) than any fan over there (optiongeek aside).

I've ventured into three of the BLP sub-Reddit discussions/threads, so far with the same results ... only WupWup9r and optiongeek seriously engage with me (not counting the Mills/BLP skeptics who do). I do not know if markie posts there (not by that name, for sure, but another handle?), but based on what he's posted here he seems to know far more (or pretends to anyway) than any fan over there (optiongeek aside).

Interesting question. How is it that markie claims to have such intimacy with Mills and every little thing he does (which ain't a whole hill of beans in the first place?)

Either markie is making it up out of whale cloth? Or markie is a shill for Mills? Or markie is eternally gullible and has a vested interest? Or markie is not who he claims to be? Or is markie simply another internat troll? Or something else?

Having been through the Steorn fiasco, I know for a fact that all of these are equally likely. In that case, there were those religious believers, those who became disenchanted, Those who harboured some hope, the sceptics, and astonished observers. When it all folded in no uncertain terms, the true blue believers still cling to it for reasons I cannot fathom.

There is nothing that will extract them from their faith. Not facts, not reality, not even abject failure.

It is rather odd.

__________________Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?

Having been through the Steorn fiasco, I know for a fact that all of these are equally likely. In that case, there were those religious believers, those who became disenchanted, Those who harboured some hope, the sceptics, and astonished observers. When it all folded in no uncertain terms, the true blue believers still cling to it for reasons I cannot fathom.

There is nothing that will extract them from their faith. Not facts, not reality, not even abject failure.

Without speculating on the motives of individuals...

Possession of special knowledge, known only to a gifted or chosen few, seems to be a strangely powerful component of personal identity for some people. In this subforum, we see people who feel special because of their knowledge of science, mathematics, medicine, and technology, but that kind of knowledge isn't all that special when it is taught in schools and relied upon in industry. To be really special, you have to know stuff that goes against the mainstream, at which pseudo-erudite dullards and sheeple scoff. And you aren't super-duper special unless they make fun of you and persecute you. (Martyrdom is the pinnacle, but most true believers retain enough sense to suspect martyrdom isn't as much fun as living on the edge, in constant fear of persecution and martyrdom.)

In short, it's fun to be smug. That, I think, explains why conspiracy theories and fundamentalist religions appeal to a surprisingly large fraction of the population. It also explains why some of the longest-running threads in this subforum run so long.

Interesting question. How is it that markie claims to have such intimacy with Mills and every little thing he does (which ain't a whole hill of beans in the first place?)

Either markie is making it up out of whale cloth? Or markie is a shill for Mills? Or markie is eternally gullible and has a vested interest? Or markie is not who he claims to be? Or is markie simply another internat troll? Or something else?

Having been through the Steorn fiasco, I know for a fact that all of these are equally likely. In that case, there were those religious believers, those who became disenchanted, Those who harboured some hope, the sceptics, and astonished observers. When it all folded in no uncertain terms, the true blue believers still cling to it for reasons I cannot fathom.

There is nothing that will extract them from their faith. Not facts, not reality, not even abject failure.

It is rather odd.

False dichotomy to separate facts from faith. It is a fact that the sun has appeared to rise in the sky every morning you or I have been alive. It is reasonable to have faith that it will continue to do so.

Mills has earned my faith. I've seen what he can do in predictive theory and experiment for almost twenty years now. (Yet I've never met the man nor communicated privately with him or anyone in his company.) Mills himself is a self professed empiricist and will take the results of experiment over theory. Facts, facts facts. That is what impresses me. I am not enamoured by the scientific dogma of the day, even if it has persisted for seventy five years. Nor do I find comfort in the safety of herd mentality. There was I time I did, in both science and even religion, but no more.

I find the skeptic response to Mills 'odd', because I thought that skeptics took evidence seriously and at face value. They do not. They would rather deny that they are facts at all and instead entertain conspiracy theories that Mills and coworkers and validators are trying to fool us. Anything but regard the mainstream institutional view skeptically. Odd indeed, considering that we look back at history and find it easy to admit the mainstream institutional views of the past were often defective.

'Skepticism' - as exhibited here - and institutional religion have more in common than I would have thought. Traditional religion is dogmatism grounded in the past; skepticism as I've seen here is dogmatism grounded in the present. Perhaps freethinkers like myself are grounded in the future.

Mills has earned my faith. I've seen what he can do in predictive theory and experiment for almost twenty years now. (Yet I've never met the man nor communicated privately with him or anyone in his company.)

Then where have you seen this stuff? What exactly have you seen?

Originally Posted by markie

I find the skeptic response to Mills 'odd', because I thought that skeptics took evidence seriously and at face value. They do not.

But where is the evidence?? Mills continuously promises it and constantly fails.

Please don't ignore this question again: Why didn't Mills show this evidence to the world last year? He claims to have it readily available and said he show it to the world last year. Last year has come and gone and he didn't show the evidence to world. Why?

__________________REJ (Robert E Jones) posting anonymously under my real name for 30 years.

Make a fire for a man and you keep him warm for a day. Set him on fire and you keep him warm for the rest of his life.

I've seen what he can do in predictive theory and experiment for almost twenty years now.

And yet you have never seen a hydrino, a hydrino compound, or a working prototype generator powered by hydrinos in all those 20 years.

You even admitted you would eat humble pie and admit that you were wrong about BLP and Mills if yet again he failed to produce a hydrino, a hydrino compound, or a working prototype generator powered by hydrinos by the end of February.

I don't see any humility at all. No admission what so ever that you were wrong about hydrinos or Mills.

In fact Mill's repeated failures seem to have the opposite effect on you. You are becoming ever more arrogant and bold the more Mills fails to produce.

I could see you working up to a religious frenzy soon! Complete with a full Pentecostal "holy roller" episode!

You have already proclaimed,

Originally Posted by markie

"Mills has earned my faith."

Faith?Faith in a mortal man? Even Pentecostals are rational enough to understand that if you put your faith in a man, you will be disappointed! Only the insane would be faithful in Mills after 30 years of failure and nothing to show for it at all. Not one single hydrino nor hydrino compound. Nada zip zero.

__________________Scott
"Permaculture is a philosophy of working﻿ with, rather than against nature; of protracted & thoughtful observation rather than protracted & thoughtless labour; & of looking at plants & animals in all their functions, rather than treating any area as a single-product system." Bill MollisonBiome Carbon Cycle Management

False dichotomy to separate facts from faith. It is a fact that the sun has appeared to rise in the sky every morning you or I have been alive. It is reasonable to have faith that it will continue to do so.

It is equally a fact that Mills has failed to produce a marketable device on every previous occasion that he has promised that one was imminent, and quite reasonable to have faith that he will likewise continue to do so.

Dave

__________________Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

I've ventured into three of the BLP sub-Reddit discussions/threads, so far with the same results ... only WupWup9r and optiongeek seriously engage with me (not counting the Mills/BLP skeptics who do). I do not know if markie posts there (not by that name, for sure, but another handle?), but based on what he's posted here he seems to know far more (or pretends to anyway) than any fan over there (optiongeek aside).

There was a time when I thought markie and PeterCornswalled might be the same person. But since he's the one who posted the thread about markie trying to discredit Mills either that's incorrect, or the posting of that thread was a next-level bit of trolling.

And yet you have never seen a hydrino, a hydrino compound, or a working prototype generator powered by hydrinos in all those 20 years.

You even admitted you would eat humble pie and admit that you were wrong about BLP and Mills if yet again he failed to produce a hydrino, a hydrino compound, or a working prototype generator powered by hydrinos by the end of February.

I don't see any humility at all. No admission what so ever that you were wrong about hydrinos or Mills.

In fact Mill's repeated failures seem to have the opposite effect on you. You are becoming ever more arrogant and bold the more Mills fails to produce.

I could see you working up to a religious frenzy soon! Complete with a full Pentecostal "holy roller" episode!

You have already proclaimed,

Faith?Faith in a mortal man? Even Pentecostals are rational enough to understand that if you put your faith in a man, you will be disappointed! Only the insane would be faithful in Mills after 30 years of failure and nothing to show for it at all. Not one single hydrino nor hydrino compound. Nada zip zero.

That appears just a bit glib, but you may have put your finger in the wound. Markie does not care about mere facts, it is a matter of religious faith for him.

__________________Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?

And yet you have never seen a hydrino, a hydrino compound, or a working prototype generator powered by hydrinos in all those 20 years.

Over the years I've seen hydrino compound and I've seen apparatuses that produced power. No commercial device yet but I'm patient.

Quote:

Faith?Faith in a mortal man? Even Pentecostals are rational enough to understand that if you put your faith in a man, you will be disappointed!

Part of the problem is that people have so little faith in people.
I have faith in humanity, in general. Our species has survived this long and shows great promise, despite failings. Certain individuals have earned an extra portion of my faith, even though I know they make mistakes. Radical I know.

Mills has earned my faith. I've seen what he can do in predictive theory and experiment for almost twenty years now. (Yet I've never met the man nor communicated privately with him or anyone in his company.) Mills himself is a self professed empiricist and will take the results of experiment over theory. Facts, facts facts. That is what impresses me. <snip>

I would not go so far as to say that it seems you are lying, but I will say that there seem be to some inconsistencies here. And not just in Mills failing to meet his promises.

There are quite a few posts in this, and predecessor, threads which lay out - in considerable detail - mismatches between Mills' "theory" and "the results of experiment" (I'm ignoring the fact that Mills' theory is riddled with inconsistencies). And over in the BLP sub-Reddit, I've posted others (e.g. Mills' theory on the CMB gets the second and third TT acoustic peaks wrong).

Quote:

I find the skeptic response to Mills 'odd', because I thought that skeptics took evidence seriously and at face value. They do not. They would rather deny that they are facts at all and instead entertain conspiracy theories that Mills and coworkers and validators are trying to fool us. <snip>

Similar comment re "validators", with the addition of my examination of one (Booker's PDFs) has revealed serious flaws, so much so that I suspect that, in these documents, he's actually a deep-cover skeptic, signalling to any scientist reading them that he doesn't accept any of it (despite what the words say, at face value).

Over in Reddit, they're not happy with you, markie, not happy at all (""Markie" is trying to make us look like religious zealots" and "What can we do about this low energy loser? Itís sad he feels the need to make us look like fools. What can we do to shut him down?") ...

Over the years I've seen hydrino compound and I've seen apparatuses that produced power.....

A totally obviously "seen hydrino compound" delusion from markie. markie has never said that he has had a can of hydrino compound in his hands !

No one on the world has seen any of Mills delusion of hydrino compounds. There have been experiments that produced anomalous heat that Mills has ignorantly attributed to his delusions. There have been random spectra that Mills has lied about.

markie has apparently never heard of the infernal combustion engine or other "apparatuses that produced power" ! Strictly speaking, this is another delusion because Mills has not produced power, e.g. connected his machines to the electrical grid. What Mills has done is found ways to make things hot.

Page 1496 starts with Mills' abysmal ignorance about GR and cosmology.
The curvature of spacetime is produced by mass and energy so as a first approximation fusion in stars converting matter into energy does not change curvature.
Stars do not make spacetime expand ("cause spacetime to expand") ! The universe is expanding as a whole, not in bits around stars. One of the basic, well known parts of cosmology is that an expanding universe does not affect gravitationally bound objects such as people, planets , stars, and galaxies.

The rest of page is Mills' insane cosmology (a finite, closed, oscillating universe because he does some deluded math).

Mills ignorantly confuses polarization (E and B modes) of the CMB with its power spectrum. The BICEP2 results were known to be wrong in early 2015. This is a 2016 edition.

Mills lies with "The Universe is a 3-sphere hyperspace of constant positive curvature" (page 1521) when the physical evidence is that the universe is flat (zero curvature) which implies that the universe is infinite, especially for a 3-sphere.

Figure 32.13 with "E-mode and B-mode polarization of the CMBR" (BICEP2) when this is not the power spectrum. Or anything to so with the inane gibberish at the top of the page. Same stupidity in Figure 32.14 and in Figures 32.15A-B.

Figures 32.15A-B is that actual power spectrum: "The experimental power spectrum of WMAP... Courtesy of NASA, G. Hinshaw, et al.", which is then ignored The WMAP result dates from 2006.

Then we get Mills' "prediction" which is not even a fit to the power spectrum! Mills has an assertion that if he does some not-listed calculations, he gets a constant that places the E-mode T peak at "l = 140 which matches that observed by BICEP2 [141, 142]". The references are to the incorrect BICEP2 B-mode papers.

[snip]
(Yet I've never met the man nor communicated privately with him or anyone in his company.) [snip]

Originally Posted by markie

Over the years I've seen hydrino compound and I've seen apparatuses that produced power. No commercial device yet but I'm patient.
[snip]

Curious how never having met or communicated with anyone in the company, and having no connection to Mills, no investment you have seen that which no one else has and have beheld the magic hydrino compound. I am assuming this is the same Dr Randell Mills (the Harvard trained physician) who guards his work and sends cease and desist letters to anyone trying to validate his work yet allows those with no connections to the company or anyone in it to see the most closely guarded magic.

Over the years I've seen hydrino compound and I've seen apparatuses that produced power. No commercial device yet but I'm patient.

ermmm no you haven't. You saw Mill's claim it. There is a huge difference. If Mills claims were true it would be trivially easy to prove it. This has been pointed out to you multiple times. If he really had cryodistilled dihydrino in liquid form, he could easily send a vial of it out for testing and all this BS would be over. Or if he had actually produced crystals of hydrino compound he could easy send out a few crystals and have them tested. He never did that either, even after telling everyone he could and would.

As for commercial units, no, I said prototypes. Big difference. He has not even had a functioning test unit as a prototype EVER. Again, he has claimed he had them, but when push comes to shove, they are no where to be found. Non-existant. Just machines that blow up or burn up rapidly cannibalizing themselves and NEVER not once producing energy from a hydrino reaction.

As was pointed out to you many times, when the equipment burns up it releases the potential energy of refining those metals in the first place. This is an energetic but mundane reaction, not hydrinos.

And how do I know this? Because the papers presented attempting to show energy produced by the hydrino reaction never include this calculation. There has to be a reason for this. It has to be a purposeful deception.

__________________Scott
"Permaculture is a philosophy of working﻿ with, rather than against nature; of protracted & thoughtful observation rather than protracted & thoughtless labour; & of looking at plants & animals in all their functions, rather than treating any area as a single-product system." Bill MollisonBiome Carbon Cycle Management

Whoops, I thought Mills had finally got something right!
The first CMB power spectrum peak is at l ~ 200. Mills even knows that the power spectrum has this peak and other peaks (page 1519).

Read that page again and we have:Page 1519: "Inflation occurred at infinitely faster than light speed that defies the laws of wave propagation of any kind" stupidity.
It is basic cosmology that the expansion of spacetime is not constrained to the speed of light. That includes the Hubble expansion, the acceleration of that expansion and inflationary expansion.

Page 1519: Abysmal "conditions of infinite energy density" and inflation ignorance.
The Big Bang including inflation happened at t > 0, i.e. when the universe had a finite density.

Page 1519: "absence of the direct experimental observation of gravity wave" is now wrong and was always irrelevant.
The indirect evidence for gravitational waves has been around for decades.

Page 1520: A "Acoustic waves are not observed in plasmas" lie.
Plasma have waves that can travel at the speed of sound in plasma, e.g. the waves observed in helioseismology.

Page 1520: Abysmal "could not seed the structure of the Universe" ignorance.
Waves traveling at less than the speed of light (acoustic waves in plasma) are what standard cosmology has to "seed the structure of the Universe".

Page 1520: Some "standing wave" delusions.

Page 1520: Stupidity about dark matter needing to be detected in labs here on Earth.

Page 1520: Mills' insane delusion that dark matter is not dark and is hydrinos!

Page 1520: A "the missing mass has been showed to be baryonic" lie.

Page 1520: The page ends with Mills' cosmological gibberish.

Page 1521: The page starts with Mills' cosmological gibberish. We get into his E-mode and B-mode polarization delusions.

Curious how never having met or communicated with anyone in the company, and having no connection to Mills, no investment you have seen that which no one else has and have beheld the magic hydrino compound. I am assuming this is the same Dr Randell Mills (the Harvard trained physician) who guards his work and sends cease and desist letters to anyone trying to validate his work yet allows those with no connections to the company or anyone in it to see the most closely guarded magic.

We should call this sacred compound/incident: Chump: Consecrated hydrino un-observed by markie personally

I would not go so far as to say that it seems you are lying, but I will say that there seem be to some inconsistencies here. And not just in Mills failing to meet his promises.

There are quite a few posts in this, and predecessor, threads which lay out - in considerable detail - mismatches between Mills' "theory" and "the results of experiment" (I'm ignoring the fact that Mills' theory is riddled with inconsistencies). And over in the BLP sub-Reddit, I've posted others (e.g. Mills' theory on the CMB gets the second and third TT acoustic peaks wrong).

Again, with this "wrong" thing. Please post Mills figures for the peaks and post the experimental figures. Mills figures are probably pretty close, and that would be a first approximation and with no curve fitting parameters. BTW Mills doesn't believe in a big bang plasma fireball with acoustic waves. His waves are strictly gravitational, no plasma required.

Quote:

Similar comment re "validators", with the addition of my examination of one (Booker's PDFs) has revealed serious flaws, so much so that I suspect that, in these documents, he's actually a deep-cover skeptic, signalling to any scientist reading them that he doesn't accept any of it (despite what the words say, at face value).

Name your favourite 'flaw' from Booker's analysis and I will try to address it here.
Proposing that Randy Booker is a deep cover skeptic is just ... weird. Conspiracy theories can be real, but wow.

Page 1496 starts with Mills' abysmal ignorance about GR and cosmology.
The curvature of spacetime is produced by mass and energy so as a first approximation fusion in stars converting matter into energy does not change curvature.
Stars do not make spacetime expand ("cause spacetime to expand") ! The universe is expanding as a whole, not in bits around stars. One of the basic, well known parts of cosmology is that an expanding universe does not affect gravitationally bound objects such as people, planets , stars, and galaxies.

The rest of page is Mills' insane cosmology (a finite, closed, oscillating universe because he does some deluded math).

Mills ignorantly confuses polarization (E and B modes) of the CMB with its power spectrum. The BICEP2 results were known to be wrong in early 2015. This is a 2016 edition.

Mills lies with "The Universe is a 3-sphere hyperspace of constant positive curvature" (page 1521) when the physical evidence is that the universe is flat (zero curvature) which implies that the universe is infinite, especially for a 3-sphere.

Figure 32.13 with "E-mode and B-mode polarization of the CMBR" (BICEP2) when this is not the power spectrum. Or anything to so with the inane gibberish at the top of the page. Same stupidity in Figure 32.14 and in Figures 32.15A-B.

Figures 32.15A-B is that actual power spectrum: "The experimental power spectrum of WMAP... Courtesy of NASA, G. Hinshaw, et al.", which is then ignored The WMAP result dates from 2006.

Then we get Mills' "prediction" which is not even a fit to the power spectrum! Mills has an assertion that if he does some not-listed calculations, he gets a constant that places the E-mode T peak at "l = 140 which matches that observed by BICEP2 [141, 142]". The references are to the incorrect BICEP2 B-mode papers.

RC, you continue to have a remarkable way of misrepresenting what Mills is saying. The closest thing to what Mills is saying is a later theory by Penrose called conformal cyclic cosmology, or something similar. Penrose has the CMBR coming from the previous universe previous cycle, from Hawking radiation from blackholes. Mills has the CMBR coming from the previous cycle of a maximum radius, uniformly light filled universe.
If you have a problem with what Mills is saying, I suggest you mention just one item at a time rather than taking your typical shotgun approach.

Over in Reddit, they're not happy with you, markie, not happy at all (""Markie" is trying to make us look like religious zealots" and "What can we do about this low energy loser? Itís sad he feels the need to make us look like fools. What can we do to shut him down?") ...

I occasionally post at the BLP Reddit. Whoever said "shut him down" displays a backward, unenlightened attitude, so I'll presume for now he is just a trouble maker.

Yes, it's never seemed to me that there was any need for a third party to do that.

Dave

__________________Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Again, with this "wrong" thing. Please post Mills figures for the peaks and post the experimental figures. Mills figures are probably pretty close, and that would be a first approximation and with no curve fitting parameters. BTW Mills doesn't believe in a big bang plasma fireball with acoustic waves. His waves are strictly gravitational, no plasma required.

Name your favourite 'flaw' from Booker's analysis and I will try to address it here.
Proposing that Randy Booker is a deep cover skeptic is just ... weird. Conspiracy theories can be real, but wow.

I'll do better than that, I'll provide links and names (handles), and you (and anyone else) can see what's been posted (including the full context). I encourage you to respond directly in those threads; however, should you chose to post here only, I'll be happy to copy/paste ...

On the CMB, check out Dark Matter Heats Up and read the relevant posts by "optiongeek" and "JeanTate".

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.